Re: More MoD UFO Information - Pope

From: Nick Pope <nick.nul>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 15:46:35 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:14:25 -0400
Subject: Re: More MoD UFO Information - Pope
>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>>Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:37:10 +0100>Subject: Re: More MoD UFO Information>>From: Nick Pope <nick.nul>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>>>Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:55:41 +0100>>Subject: Re: More MoD UFO Information>>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>>>>To: ufoupdates.nul>>>Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 14:39:53 -0300>>>Subject: Re: More MoD UFO Information>>>Just finished looking at the PDF report on the Channel Islands>>>case. As you say the MOD sloughed it off on France. Did anyone>>>request an FOI re communications with the French civil Aviation>>>Authority or their military defence authority about this>>>possibilty of an airspace violation. Who submitted this most>>>recent request?
<snip>
>I think a number of people submitted MoD requests. I did myself,>asking for the original pilot report referenced in the CAA>Mandatory Occurrence Report together with documents and>materials relating to any other aircrew, ATC or radar facility>involvement. I have received no personal response. Instead the>documents were uploaded, so perhaps my request is considered as>part of a "class action" and now redundant in practice (although>I doubt the strict legality of doing this).
I think it's OK legally, though my understanding is that you
should have had a response before the upload, alerting you to
it, or very shortly thereafter, sending you a hyperlink.
>>Here are two quotes from the MoD's April 30 email that I find>>disappointing:>>"We had no reports from the French that the object was seen or>>detected on radar". But did they _ask_?>I seriously doubt it.>>"We believe the ATC radar at Jersey is secondary only and>>therefore unable to achieve a primary radar contact". We>>_believe_? Didn't they check?>Clearly not. Capt Bowyer's report expliciitly states that he was>informed by Jersey ATC of a primary radar contact. And if you>read the Jersey Air Traffic Controller's report this is>expliciutly confirmed. The controller also describes this>contact as possible "anaprop" - secondary radar obviously>doesn't "see" anomalous propagation echoes, only transponders.>So not only did they not check with Jersey they didn't read>their own file.
Disappointing. But unless more resources are made available,
dealing with UFO-related FOI requests can only be done at the
expense of meaningful investigations, as the same staff are
involved. And in relation to FOI, MoD has a legal duty to
comply, so this is clearly taking the priority.
Best wishes,
Nick Pope
http://www.nickpope.net
Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast
See:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/